SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
August, 30 2016, 11:15am EDT
Contact:
Florian Oel | Brussels |florian.oel@oxfaminternational.org | office +32 2 234 11 15 | mobile +32 473 56 22 60
Apple Ruling Highlights How EU governments Must Do More to Clean Up Murky Corporate Tax Practices
The European Commission today announced Apple has received 13 billion euros in illegal state aid from the Irish government. This decision follows the investigations on illegal state aid between the Dutch government and Starbucks, the Luxembourg government and Fiat, and the Belgian government for its 'excess profit' tax scheme.
Aurore Chardonnet, Oxfam EU policy advisor on inequality and tax, said:
The European Commission today announced Apple has received 13 billion euros in illegal state aid from the Irish government. This decision follows the investigations on illegal state aid between the Dutch government and Starbucks, the Luxembourg government and Fiat, and the Belgian government for its 'excess profit' tax scheme.
Aurore Chardonnet, Oxfam EU policy advisor on inequality and tax, said:
"This decision shows that some tax practises by EU member states can be terribly damaging. Poverty in Europe has been rising and some EU countries have even had bailout programmes in recent years, so it makes no sense for European governments spurn the chance to raise billions in corporate tax income for the benefit of their citizens.
"These sweetheart deals that let multinationals minimise their tax cannot be tolerated. If people's trust in the tax system is to be restored, European governments must act immediately to end these special deals otherwise people's trust in the tax system will continue to evaporate.
"So far, the multinationals that have been exposed by the European Commission have only had to pay back their missing taxes - no additional fines have been levied. This is not a sufficient deterrent whatsoever.
"More needs to be done to stop such deals in the future including the disclosure of core elements of tax rulings. In addition, companies must be forced to disclose where they generate their profits and where they pay their taxes. This would give governments and civil society the ability to hold these companies to account."
Notes to editors:
- The European Commission in 2013 launched investigations into the tax schemes operated by Apple in the Republic of Ireland. Since the early 1990's Apple received significant tax reductions by way of "tax rulings" issued by the Irish tax authorities. These determined, in advance of intra-group transactions, the amount of tax to be paid by the company. Similar investigation into tax rulings for Amazon and McDonald's with Luxembourg were launched respectively in 2014 and 2015.
- According to the European Commission, tax rulings may involve state aid within the meaning of EU rules if they are used to provide selective advantages to a specific company or group of companies.
- After the Luxleaks documents were made public by whistle-blowers Antoine Deltour and Raphael Halet in 2014, tax rulings have been exposed as harmful tax practices that permit tax avoidance. The whistle-blowers have been found guilty in a first-instance ruling in June 2016. The case is on-going as the Luxembourg prosecutor appealed the ruling.
- In October 2015, the European Commission concluded that Luxembourg and the Netherlands had granted selective tax advantages respectively to Fiat and to Starbucks. In her speech, Commissioner Vestager called for a fundamental shift in corporate philosophies.
- In January 2016, the European Commission has concluded that selective tax advantages granted by Belgium under its "excess profit" tax scheme are illegal under EU state aid rules. The scheme has benefitted at least 35 multinationals mainly from the EU, who must now return unpaid taxes to Belgium.
- In December 2015, the EU adopted a directive aimed at improving the exchange of information on tax rulings given by member states to companies on advance cross-border tax rulings, as well as advance pricing arrangements. However, the public will not be allowed to access this information.
- In April 2016, the Commission presented a plan for so-called country-by-country reporting, obliging companies to disclose information on profits made and taxes paid for each country they operate in. However, the proposed rules are too weak to effectively fight tax dodging.
- Oxfam America has published the report Broken at the Top in April 2016, which specifically examines Apple's tax practices as one of the US's 50 largest corporations. In their report Getting to Good of November 2015, Oxfam, Christian Aid, and ActionAid lay out principles for responsible corporate behavior on tax.
- In March 2015, Oxfam published "Pulling the Plug - How to stop corporate tax dodging in Europe and beyond", a briefing note that explores ways to fight corporate tax avoidance in the European Union. It explains why it is vital for the EU to adopt legislation against tax dodging as soon as possible.
Oxfam International is a global movement of people who are fighting inequality to end poverty and injustice. We are working across regions in about 70 countries, with thousands of partners, and allies, supporting communities to build better lives for themselves, grow resilience and protect lives and livelihoods also in times of crisis.
LATEST NEWS
Dems Wouldn't 'Ignore' Parliamentarian to Raise Minimum Wage, But GOP Plans to for Massive Tax Giveaway to the Rich
"They are deciding that the way we're gonna do this is break the Senate and make up our own rules," said Sen. Cory Booker.
Apr 01, 2025
During 2021 battles to raise the minimum wage and advance the Build Back Better agenda, congressional Democrats refused to "ignore" the unelected U.S. Senate parliamentarian—but Republican lawmakers are now planning to do just that, so they can give the wealthy trillions of more dollars in tax cuts, at the expense of programs that serve working people.
GOP Senate leadership and the White House want to make permanent tax cuts that President Donald Trumpsigned into law in 2017, "without having to account for how much it would add to the deficit," Axiosreported Tuesday. "Now, they're saying all they need is for Budget Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to decide that's what they're going to do."
"Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) backed the argument, laid out by Graham, that Republicans don't need the Senate parliamentarian to bless the current policy approach during Tuesday's Senate GOP lunch," Axios detailed. "Graham is expected to release the language of the budget resolution as soon as Tuesday, according to GOP Whip John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)."
As a trio of experts at the Center for American Progress—including economist Lawrence Summers—wrote Tuesday: "The majority is attempting to force the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) to say the fiscal impact is instead zero dollars by using a 'current policy' baseline rather than the 'current law' baseline that is defined in statute. This approach is unprecedented in the 50 years since the CBO was formed and Congress acted within the current budget framework."
"Whether one believes the United States should be cutting taxes or increasing spending, there should be no question that forcing the CBO and JCT to pretend that policies have no fiscal impact would allow Congress to make major tax and spending decisions with no arithmetic recognition of the cost," they argued. "This would be the epitome of fiscal irresponsibility. Congress needs to responsibly bring down deficits. Establishing principles that make it possible to incur huge costs without recognizing them would be an egregious and dangerous error."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)—who has faced calls to resign from his leadership post after caving to congressional Republicans during last month's shutdown fight—spoke out against the plan on Tuesday, as NBC Newsreported.
"That would be going nuclear," Schumer said. "And it shows that Republicans are so hell-bent on giving these tax breaks to the billionaires that they're willing to break any rules, norms, and things they promised they wouldn't do."
While Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) was in the midst of holding the chamber's floor in remarks that began Monday night and were ongoing as of press time, to protest Trump's sweeping attacks on government, Schumer also informed him of the GOP plan.
Booker read in full a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report from February titled, House Republican Budget's $4.5 Trillion Tax Cut Doubles Down on Costly Failures of 2017 Tax Law, as well as recent reporting in The New York Times about what the newspaper called "a maneuver so wonky that it might be best explained with sports cars and anime streaming."
"They found a way around the parliamentarian. They found a way around the rules of the Senate. They found a way around the ideals of reconciliation," Booker said of congressional Republicans. "They are deciding that the way we're gonna do this is break the Senate and make up our own rules. This is how they're gonna get a bill through that gives trillions [of] dollars of tax cuts to the wealthiest in our country who are doing very well."
While refusing to "hate on" wealthy Americans, Booker also had a message for them: "You don't need tax cuts, especially not that are gonna be given to you on the backs of the poor, on the backs of our elders, on the backs of our children, on the backs of expectant mothers, on the backs of my mom's, your mom's Social Security."
Booker's historic stunt—which set a new record for the longest Senate floor speech in history—came as polls show Democratic voters are frustrated with the party's failure to effectively stand up to Trump and fight for working people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Cuts, NATO Withdrawals Weakening Landmine Treaty and Endangering Lives
"The Trump administration's deep cuts to foreign aid are now disrupting mine clearance operations," one campaigner said ahead of International Day of Mine Action.
Apr 01, 2025
International Day for Mine Action on April 4 is typically an occasion to take stock of humanity's progress toward eradicating the scourge of landmines; however, with the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump dramatically slashing foreign aid and several European Union and North Atlantic Treaty Organization members withdrawing from the landmark Mine Ban Treaty, campaigners say there's little worth celebrating this Friday.
Mary Wareham, deputy director of Human Rights Watch's Crisis, Conflict, and Arms program, said Tuesday that International Day of Mine Action "is a moment to highlight the work of the thousands of deminers around the world who clear and destroy landmines and explosive remnants of war."
"They risk their lives to help communities recover from armed conflict and its intergenerational impacts," Wareham—a joint recipient of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for her work with the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL)—continued. "But due to devastating developments driven largely by two countries that have not banned antipersonnel landmines, the United States and Russia, this Mine Action Day does not feel like much of a celebration."
"For over three decades, the U.S. has been the world's largest contributor to humanitarian demining, mine risk education, and rehabilitation programs for landmine survivors," Wareham noted. "But the Trump administration's deep cuts to foreign aid are now disrupting mine clearance operations. Thousands of deminers have been fired or put on administrative leave pending the completion of so-called reviews. It's unclear if this crucial support will continue. The price of Trump administration cuts will be evident as casualties increase."
Responding to the Trump cuts, Anne Héry, advocacy director at the Maryland-based group Humanity & Inclusion—a founding ICBL member—said:
Any delay in clearance prolongs the danger of contamination by explosive ordnance for affected populations. Clearance operations save lives, especially children, who are often victims of explosive devices. They also enable communities to use land for agriculture, construction, and other economic activities. This funding cut will further displace vulnerable populations who cannot return home due to contamination. It will also result in limited access to schools, healthcare facilities, and water sources in contaminated areas.
The Trump administration's seeming disdain for Ukrainian—and by extension much of Europe's—security concerns, combined with Russia's ongoing invasion and occupation of much of Ukraine, has some E.U. and NATO members looking for other ways to defend against potential Russian aggression.
Earlier this month, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania said they would withdraw from the 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, also known as the Ottawa Treaty and the Mine Ban Treaty.
In a joint statement, the four countries' defense ministers explained that "military threats to NATO member states bordering Russia and Belarus have significantly increased" and that "with this decision we are sending a clear message [that] our countries are prepared and can use every necessary measure to defend our security needs."
As Wareham also noted: "Russian forces have used antipersonnel landmines extensively in Ukraine since 2022, causing civilian casualties and contaminating agricultural land. Ukraine has also used antipersonnel mines and has received them from the U.S., in violation of the Mine Ban Treaty."
In another blow to the Mine Ban Treaty, Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo announced Tuesday that Finland is preparing to quit the pact, a move he said "will give us the possibility to prepare for the changes in the security environment in a more versatile way."
#Estonia #Latvia #Lithuania #Finland #Poland – DO NOT EXIT the Mine Ban Treaty! Your choices shape the future. "Young people are watching, and we’re counting on you" to uphold the ban on landmines! #MineFreeWorld #ProtectMineBan
[image or embed]
— International Campaign to Ban Landmines (@minefreeworld.bsky.social) April 1, 2025 at 7:04 AM
Wareham said that "the proposed treaty withdrawals raise the question of what other humanitarian disarmament treaties are at risk: chemical weapons? cluster munitions? The military utility of any weapon must be weighed against the expected humanitarian damage."
"To avoid further eroding humanitarian norms, Poland and the Baltic states should reject proposals to leave the Mine Ban Treaty," she added. "They should instead reaffirm their collective commitment to humanitarian norms aimed at safeguarding humanity in war."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Harvard and Princeton Are the Latest Ivies to Have Their Funding Targeted By Trump
One critic wrote that an email from Harvard University's president about the Trump administration's funding review capitulated to the "bogus premise that this is about 'protecting' students against antisemitism."
Apr 01, 2025
This week, Harvard University learned that Trump administration is reviewing nearly $9 billion in federal grants awarded to the school and Princeton University has had multiple research grants suspended by multiple federal agencies—making the two institutions the latest in series of elite colleges to have their funding threatened by U.S. President Donald Trump.
In the case of Harvard, the scrutiny from the Trump administration is explicitly tied to Trump's pledge to crackdown on what he sees as rampant antisemitism on college campuses.
In the name of opposing antisemitism, Trump has vowed to target foreign-born students who have engaged in pro-Palestine protests, activities that the president has described as "pro-jihadist." Several students who have taken part in pro-Palestine activism have already been targeted for deportation.
According to a Monday statement from the U.S. Department of Education, multiple federal agencies are launching a comprehensive review of federal contracts and grants at Harvard as part of the ongoing efforts of the Trump administration's Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism.
The task force will review over $255.6 million in contracts between Harvard, its affiliates, and the federal government, as well as $8.7 billion in multiyear grant commitments to the university and its affiliates to ensure "the university is in compliance with federal regulations, including its civil rights responsibilities."
"Harvard's failure to protect students on campus from antisemitic discrimination—all while promoting divisive ideologies over free inquiry—has put its reputation in serious jeopardy. Harvard can right these wrongs and restore itself to a campus dedicated to academic excellence and truth-seeking, where all students feel safe on its campus," said Education Secretary Linda McMahon in a statement on Monday.
In a message that was denounced by multiple observers, Harvard's president Alan Garber wrote in a Monday message to the Harvard community that the school has devoted "considerable effort" to addressing antisemitism on its campus over the past 15 months, including by "enhancing training and education on antisemitism."
"We still have much work to do," wrote Garber. "We will engage with members of the federal government's task force to combat antisemitism to ensure that they have a full account of the work we have done and the actions we will take going forward to combat antisemitism."
"If this funding is stopped, it will halt lifesaving research and imperil important scientific research and innovation," he also wrote.
Researcher Hannah Gais, a graduate of Harvard Divinity School, wrote on Monday that Garber's message "completely caves to the administration and its bogus premise that this is about 'protecting' students against antisemitism."
"What a disgraceful letter from Harvard president Alan Garber, surrendering entirely to Trump and the pernicious nonsense that America's universities, some of the greatest and most Jewish institutions in American life, are rife with antisemitism," wrote historian and editor Sam Haselby on X.
Meanwhile, the president of Princeton told the university community on Tuesday that several research grants to the university have been suspended by the federal government.
"The full rationale for this action is not yet clear, but I want to be clear about the principles that will guide our response," wrote Princeton president Christopher L. Eisgruber on Tuesday, according to The New York Times. "Princeton University will comply with the law. We are committed to fighting antisemitism and all forms of discrimination, and we will cooperate with the government in combating antisemitism."
In February, the Task Force to Combat Antisemitism announced that it would be investigating 10 universities, including Harvard and Columbia University—which recently had $400 million in federal grants revoked by the Trump administration. That list did not include Princeton, though Princeton was one of 60 colleges that received letters last month from the U.S. Department of Education that warned of potential actions against schools if the government found they had not done enough to protect Jewish students.
After the Trump administration stripped Columbia of the $400 million, the administration announced later in March that it was freezing $175 million in federal funds for the University of Pennsylvania, citing the university's policies on transgender athletes.
In March, Columbia announced a number of changes to the school that aligned with the wishes of the Trump administration as part of negotiations over the rescinded $400 million in federal grants—prompting a wave of criticism of the university.
In an opinion piece for Common Dreamspublished on Tuesday, Steve Striffler, the director of the Labor Resource Center at the University of Massachusetts Boston, argued that it is not wholly accurate to say that Columbia's changes were a "capitulation" to the Trump administration.
Instead, "it seems quite likely that Columbia's leaders accepted Trump's demands not so much because they were forced to (capitulate), or because they saw fighting as either futile or potentially disastrous, but because they welcomed the opportunity and political cover that Trump's order provided," he wrote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular